Development of a definition for the alcohol hangover: Consumer descriptions and expert consensus

Up to now, there is no adequate definition of the alcohol hangover. The purpose of the current study was to develop a useful definition, and consensus among those who will use it in scientific publications. A survey was conducted among N=1099 social drinkers who recently had a hangover. They were asked to provide their definition of the alcohol hangover. Text mining and content analysis revealed 3 potential definitions. These were submitted to members of the Alcohol Hangover Research Group, who were asked to give their expert opinion on the proposed definitions. Taking into account their comments and suggestions, the following definition for the alcohol hangover was formulated: “The alcohol hangover refers to the combination of mental and physical symptoms, experienced the day after a single episode of heavy drinking, starting when blood alcohol concentration approaches zero.

Advantages and limitations of naturalistic study designs and their implementation in alcohol hangover research

In alcohol hangover research, both naturalistic designs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are successfully employed to study the causes, consequences, and treatments of hangovers. Although increasingly applied in both social sciences and medical research, the suitability of naturalistic study designs remains a topic of debate. In both types of study design, screening participants and conducting assessments on-site (e.g., psychometric tests, questionnaires, and biomarker assessments) are usually equally rigorous and follow the same standard operating procedures. However, they differ in the levels of monitoring and restrictions imposed on behaviors of participants before the assessments are conducted (e.g., drinking behaviors resulting in the next day hangover). These behaviors are highly controlled in RCTs and uncontrolled in naturalistic studies. As a result, the largest difference between naturalistic studies and RCTs is their ecological validity, which is usually significantly lower for RCTs and (related to that) the degree of standardization of experimental intervention, which is usually significantly higher for RCTs. In this paper, we specifically discuss the application of naturalistic study designs and RCTs in hangover research. It is debated whether it is necessary to control certain behaviors that precede the hangover state when the aim of a study is to examine the effects of the hangover state itself. If the preceding factors and behaviors are not in the focus of the research question, a naturalistic study design should be preferred whenever one aims to better mimic or understand real-life situations in experimental/intervention studies. Furthermore, to improve the level of control in naturalistic studies, mobile technology can be applied to provide more continuous and objective real-time data, without investigators interfering with participant behaviors or the lab environment impacting on the subjective state. However, for other studies, it may be essential that certain behaviors are strictly controlled. It is, for example, vital that both test days are comparable in terms of consumed alcohol and achieved hangover severity levels when comparing the efficacy and safety of a hangover treatment with a placebo treatment day. This is best accomplished with the help of a highly controlled RCT design

The Impact of Having a 15-min Break With and Without Consuming an Energy Drink on Prolonged Simulated Highway Driving

Purpose: To examine whether consuming an energy drink while having a break is effective in reducing the number of lapses of attention during prolonged highway driving. Methods: In a double-blind crossover study, N = 21 healthy volunteers performed a 4-h driving test in the STISIM driving simulator. After 2 h, a 15-min break was scheduled. During the break, participants consumed either 250 ml of energy drink (ED) (Red Bull) or a placebo drink (Red Bull without caffeine (80 mg), glucuronolactone, taurine and B-vitamins). Participants were instructed to drive 95 km/h with a steady lateral position. Primary outcome was the number (#) of lapses; i.e., short periods of inattention defined by a deviation from the chosen lateral position for > 100 cm for 8 s or more. Results: Having a break, without consuming energy drink, significantly reduced the number of lapses in the 3rd hour of driving (9.9 versus 7.4 lapses, p = 0.006). After placebo, the number of lapses in the 4th and 2nd hour were identical (9.9 and 9.9 lapses, p = 1.000). Consuming and energy drink during the break resulted in a significant reduction in lapses in the 3rd hour (4.3 versus 9.2, p = 0.012) and 4th hour of driving (6.2 versus 9.2 lapses, p = 0.041), when compared with the 2nd hour of driving. Conclusion: Consuming an energy drink while having a 15-min break significantly reduces the number of lapses during prolonged highway driving, and to a greater extent than having a break only

Susceptibility to alcohol hangovers: Not just a matter of being resilient

Introduction: Although most drinkers have experienced a hangover the day following heavy alcohol consumption, a minority claims to be hangover resistant despite consuming the same large quantities of alcohol as those reporting alcohol hangover. The aim of the current study was to examine if susceptibility to experiencing hangovers is related to a drinker's interpretation of wellbeing and psychological assets to bounce back. Methods: A survey was conducted among 2295 Dutch students assessing their past month alcohol consumption patterns, and measuring mental resilience and wellbeing. Estimated peak blood alcohol concentration (e-pBAC) for their heaviest drinking occasion in the past month was computed for each participant. Data from participants who reported a past month hangover, i.e. hangover sensitive drinkers, were compared with hangover resistant drinkers. The analyses were conducted for (a) all participants reaching an e-pBAC ≥ 0.11% (N = 986, of which 24.6% claimed to be hangover resistant) and (b) participants reaching an e-pBAC ≥ 0.18% (N = 480, of which 16.7% claimed to be hangover resistant). Results: For both e-pBAC cut-off values, no significant differences between hangover sensitive and hangover resistant drinkers were found for mental resilience and wellbeing. Conclusion: The current findings suggest that having a hangover is not simply an expression of poor psychological coping with the next-day consequences of heavy alcohol consumption

An explorative approach to understanding individual differences in driving performance and neurocognition in long-term benzodiazepine users

Objective: Previous research reported cognitive and psychomotor impairments in long‐term users of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs). This article explores the role of acute intoxication and clinical complaints. Methods: Neurocognitive and on‐road driving performance of 19 long‐term (≥6 months) regular (≥twice weekly) BZRA users with estimated plasma concentrations, based on self‐reported use, exceeding the therapeutic threshold (CBZRA+), and 31 long‐term regular BZRA users below (CBZRA−), was compared to that of 76 controls. Results: BZRA users performed worse on tasks of response speed, processing speed, and sustained attention. Age, but not CBZRA or self‐reported clinical complaints, was a significant covariate. Road‐tracking performance was explained by CBZRA only. The CBZRA + group exhibited increased mean standard deviation of lateral position comparable to that at blood‐alcohol concentrations of 0.5 g/L. Conclusions: Functional impairments in long‐term BZRA users are not attributable to self‐reported clinical complaints or estimated BZRA concentrations, except for road‐tracking, which was impaired in CBZRA + users. Limitations to address are the lack of assessment of objective clinical complaints, acute task related stress, and actual BZRA plasma concentrations. In conclusion, the results confirm previous findings that demonstrate inferior performance across several psychomotor and neurocognitive domains in long‐term BZRA users

Sensitivity to Experiencing Alcohol Hangovers: Reconsideration of the 0.11% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Threshold for Having a Hangover

The 2010 Alcohol Hangover Research Group consensus paper defined a cutoff blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.11% as a toxicological threshold indicating that sufficient alcohol had been consumed to develop a hangover. The cutoff was based on previous research and applied mostly in studies comprising student samples. Previously, we showed that sensitivity to hangovers depends on (estimated) BAC during acute intoxication, with a greater percentage of drinkers reporting hangovers at higher BAC levels. However, a substantial number of participants also reported hangovers at comparatively lower BAC levels. This calls the suitability of the 0.11% threshold into question. Recent research has shown that subjective intoxication, i.e., the level of severity of reported drunkenness, and not BAC, is the most important determinant of hangover severity. Non-student samples often have a much lower alcohol intake compared to student samples, and overall BACs often remain below 0.11%. Despite these lower BACs, many non-student participants report having a hangover, especially when their subjective intoxication levels are high. This may be the case when alcohol consumption on the drinking occasion that results in a hangover significantly exceeds their “normal” drinking level, irrespective of whether they meet the 0.11% threshold in any of these conditions. Whereas consumers may have relative tolerance to the adverse effects at their “regular” drinking level, considerably higher alcohol intake—irrespective of the absolute amount—may consequentially result in a next-day hangover. Taken together, these findings suggest that the 0.11% threshold value as a criterion for having a hangover should be abandoned

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Mirtazapine as positive control drug in studies examining the effects of antidepressants on driving ability

The development of effective and safe antidepressant medications is ongoing, and driving studies are critical to assess a drug׳s safety. The current review summarizes the effects of a sedating effective antidepressant, mirtazapine, on driving ability, and its potential to serve as positive control drug in future driving studies. Three on-road driving studies and four driving simulator studies of mirtazapine were identified. The studies, conducted in healthy volunteers, showed a significant dose-dependent driving impairment, the first day following bedtime administration of mirtazapine. The magnitude of impairment after a single dose of 15 mg or 30 mg mirtazapine was comparable to that observed with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%, the legal limit for driving in many countries. After 1 or 2 weeks of daily treatment with mirtazapine, partial tolerance developed to mirtazapine׳s effects on driving. Driving studies conducted in patients were less informative, as the effect on driving caused by mirtazapine was obscured by a drug–disease interaction and increased variability in patient groups. In conclusion, mirtazapine is useful as positive control drug to assess the potential effects of new antidepressant drugs on driving. Studies in normal healthy volunteers are more sensitive to drug effects than studies in patient populations

Driving while hungover: the necessity of biomarkers of the alcohol hangover state

Abstract not available